[ v01 p288 ]
01:0288(36)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
1 FLRA No. 36
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION
SERVICE
Respondent
and
MARY A. EGAN
Complainant
Assistant Secretary
Case No. 20-6723(CA)
DECISION AND ORDER
ON JANUARY 11, 1979, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WILLIAM NAIMARK ISSUED
HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED PROCEEDING,
FINDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD NOT ENGAGED IN THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMPLAINT
BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THEREAFTER, THE COMPLAINANT FILED
EXCEPTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED
DECISION AND ORDER.
THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LABOR FOR
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED, WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 304 OF REORGANIZATION PLAN
NO. 2 OF 1978 (43 F.R. 36040), WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS IS
IMPLEMENTED BY SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION RULES AND
REGULATIONS (44 F.R. 7). THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE FUNCTIONS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7135(B) OF THE
FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1215).
THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2400.2 OF THE AUTHORITY'S TRANSITION
RULES AND REGULATIONS AND SECTION 7135(B) OF THE STATUTE, THE AUTHORITY
HAS REVIEWED THE RULINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MADE AT THE
HEARING AND FINDS THAT NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR WAS COMMITTED. THE RULINGS
ARE HEREBY AFFIRMED. UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER AND THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS
CASE, INCLUDING THE EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT, THE AUTHORITY
HEREBY ADOPTS THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S FINDINGS, /1/ CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATION. /2/
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY CASE
NO. 20-6723(CA) BE, AND IT HEREBY IS, DISMISSED.
ISSUED, WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 9, 1979
RONALD W. HAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN
HENRY B. FRAZIER III, MEMBER
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NANCY BROFF, ESQ.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION
SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427
FOR THE RESPONDENT
MARY A. EGAN
101 E. MADISON AVENUE
CLIFTON HEIGHTS, PA 19106
PRO SE
BEFORE: WILLIAM NAIMARK
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
CASE NO. 20-6723(CA)
RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PURSUANT TO A NOTICE OF HEARING ON COMPLAINT ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 27,
1978, BY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR LABOR-MANAGEMENT SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PHILADELPHIA REGION, A
HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON NOVEMBER 2, 1978 AT
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
THIS PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
(HEREIN CALLED THE ORDER). A COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON MAY 9, 1978 BY MARY
A. EGAN (HEREIN CALLED COMPLAINANT) AGAINST FEDERAL MEDIATION AND
CONCILIATION SERVICE (HEREIN CALLED RESPONDENT). IT ALLEGED THAT
COMPLAINANT WAS ISSUED A LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT BY RESPONDENT FOR
FAILING TO DROP A PRIOR UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATION BY EGAN AGAINST
THIS RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. 20-06458(CA). COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT
SUCH CONDUCT CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (4) OF THE
ORDER. /3/
RESPONDENT SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT, DATED MAY 26, 1978,
DENYING THE COMMISSION OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES. IT CONTENDED THAT ANY
ACTS TAKEN TOWARD COMPLAINANT STEMMED FROM HER WORK PERFORMANCE AND
BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS, AND RESPONDENT AVERRED IT NEVER REQUESTED EGAN TO
DROP HER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE, NO. 20-06458(CA).
RESPONDENT WAS REPRESENTED AT THE HEARING AND COMPLAINANT APPEARED
PRO SE. EACH PARTY WAS AFFORDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO ADDUCE
EVIDENCE AND TO EXAMINE AS WELL AS CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES. THEREAFTER,
BRIEFS WERE FILED WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED.
UPON THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, FROM MY OBSERVATION OF THE
WITNESSES AND THEIR DEMEANOR, AND FROM ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE HEARING, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. AT ALL TIMES MATERIAL HEREIN THE COMPLAINANT, MARY A. EGAN, HAS
BEEN, AND STILL IS, EMPLOYED AS A GS-5 CLERK STENOGRAPHER IN
RESPONDENT'S REGIONAL OFFICE (REGION II) AT PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.
2. RECORD FACTS REFLECT, AND I FIND, THAT PRIOR TO 1978
COMPLAINANT'S SUPERVISOR, HAROLD HORWITZ, HAD REPRIMANDED COMPLAINT FOR
DEFICIENCIES IN HER WORK AS WELL AS HER BELLIGERENT ATTITUDE AND
DISRESPECT TOWARD HER SUPERVISOR. DURING THE SUMMER OF 1977, BOTH
HORWITZ AND ROBERT W. DONNAHOO, WHO SUPERVISED HORWITZ, TALKED TO
COMPLAINANT RE HER ATTITUDE AND WORK PERFORMANCE. ON JULY 20, 1977
HORWITZ INFORMED COMPLAINANT THAT HER WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE WOULD BE
DENIED BECAUSE OF HER DEFICIENCIES AND MISBEHAVIOR. /4/
3. RESPONDENT FORMALLY DENIED EGAN HER WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE ON
SEPTEMBER 23, 1977. THE DENIAL WAS APPEALED TO THE APPEALS AUTHORITY OF
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AND THE LATTER BODY REVERSED THE AGENCY'S
DETERMINATION ON MARCH 31, 1978.
4. DURING THE COURSE OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITH RESPONDENT, AND PRIOR TO
MARCH 1978, COMPLAINANT SOUGHT A POSITION AS SECRETARY (STENOGRAPHER)
WITH BOTH THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR.
AN APPRAISAL FORM DATED JANUARY 12, 1978, WAS FORWARDED BY THE
CONSOLIDATED CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE TO HORWITZ IN CONNECTION WITH
COMPLAINT'S APPLICATION FOR A POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY. THE
FORM TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE SUPERVISOR CONTAINED QUESTIONS TO BE
ANSWERED AND TRAITS TO BE RATED IN RESPECT TO EGAN. THE APPRAISAL WAS
SIGNED BY HORWITZ ON JANUARY 23, 1978 BUT SEVERAL ITEMS WERE NOT
COMPLETED. IN RESPECT TO COMPLAINANT'S APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, HORWITZ SIGNED AN "EMPLOYEE ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEW" ON FEBRUARY 23, 1978. WHILE EGAN WAS RECOMMENDED AS
PERFORMING SATISFACTORY DUTIES, HER SUPERVISOR LEFT BLANK CERTAIN
PERFORMANCE RATINGS ON THE FORM.
5. TESTIMONY ADDUCED FROM HORWITZ INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT COMPLETE
THE FORMS IN BOTH INSTANCES BECAUSE THEY CALLED FOR RATINGS ON PERSONAL
TRAITS WHICH WERE THE BASIS FOR A DENIAL OF THE WITHIN GRADE INCREASE BY
RESPONDENT PRIOR THERETO. SINCE THE DENIAL WAS BEING APPEALED, THE
SUPERVISOR CONCLUDED THAT AN ADVERSE COMMENT OR RATING MIGHT HINDER
COMPLAINANT'S CHANCES OF OBTAINING THE POSITIONS SOUGHT BY HER.
6. THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, COMPOSED OF FOUR REGULAR CLERICALS, WERE
STATIONED IN ONE ROOM AT RESPONDENT'S REGIONAL OFFICE. IN ADDITION TO
THE OTHER CLERICALS, BOTH MARY EGAN AND JOANNE BEVAN WORKED THEREIN.
SUPERVISOR HORWITZ, WHO OCCUPIED AN OFFICE IN AN ANTEROOM NEARBY, WAS IN
CHARGE OF THIS STAFF, AND RECORD FACTS SHOW THAT SINCE 1946 HE HAD KEPT
NOTES RE THE PERFORMANCE AND BEHAVIOR OF ALL CLERICALS WHOM HE
SUPERVISED.
7. INCLUDED AMONG THE DUTIES PERFORMED BY COMPLAINANT WAS THE
PREPARATION OF TRAVEL VOUCHERS FOR THE MEDIATORS. ON MARCH 1, 1978
JOANNE BEVAN, AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK WHO HANDLED TRAVEL VOUCHERS,
PLACED TWO OF THEM ON COMPLAINANT'S DESK. THE VOUCHERS WERE TO BE
PREPARED FOR FURTHER PROCESSING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER BEVAN WALKED INTO
HORWITZ'S OFFICE AND STATED SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE VOUCHERS GOING
OUT THAT DAY. THE SUPERVISOR WENT TO EGAN'S DESK AND SAID HE HOPED SHE
WOULD FINISH THEM BEFORE THE END OF THE DAY. ABOUT 5-10 MINUTES LATER
EGAN ENTERED HORWITZ'S OFFICE. SHE SAID THAT BEVAN HAD NOT FILLED IN
THE FRONT OF THE VOUCHER WITH THE NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THUS EGAN WANTED
TO KNOW WHAT RIGHT BEVAN HAD TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE VOUCHERS NOT BEING
FINISHED. AFTER EGAN LEFT HIS OFFICE, HORWITZ CALLED IN BEVAN AND THEY
DISCUSSED THE OMISSIONS ON THE VOUCHERS. WHEREUPON COMPLAINANT ENTERED
THE OFFICE AND COMMENTED THAT THE VOUCHER WAS AS BLANK AS BEVAN'S FACE.
THE LATTER REPLIED IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS TO FILL OUT THE
FRONT OF THE VOUCHER. IN A RAISED VOICE COMPLAINANT SAID THAT THEN SHE
SHOULD ALSO BE A GS-6, AND BEVAN REMARKED EGAN SHOULD BE A GS-2.
8. FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT IN HIS OFFICE, SUPERVISOR HORWITZ WENT TO
SEE DONNAHOO AND INFORMED HIM THEREOF. A DISCUSSION ENSUED IN THE
OFFICE AMONG HORWITZ, DONNAHOO AND MARLOWE, AND THEY DECIDED TO SPEAK TO
COMPLAINANT RE HER BEHAVIOR. NO DECISION WAS MADE BY MANAGEMENT AT THAT
TIME TO TAKE ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION TOWARD EGAN. HORWITZ THEN TOLD
COMPLAINANT THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPERVISORS WANTED TO TALK TO HER IN
THE CONFERENCE ROOM, BUT EGAN REFUSED TO MEET WITHOUT A REPRESENTATIVE
BEING PRESENT.
9. AS A RESULT OF COMPLAINANT'S REFUSAL TO MEET AS AFORESAID,
MANAGEMENT DECIDED TO ISSUE A LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT TO COMPLAINANT
BASED ON SUCH REFUSAL AND HER DISRESPECT TOWARD HORWITZ. ACCORDINGLY,
ON MARCH 2, 1978 COMPLAINANT WAS GIVEN A WRITTEN MEMORANDUM WHICH
CONSTITUTED AN OFFICIAL ADMONISHMENT FOR HER "BELLIGERENT AND DEMANDING
ATTITUDE" TOWARD HER SUPERVISOR HORWITZ ON MARCH 1. THE MEMO FAULTED
COMPLAINANT FOR "SCREAMING" AT HER SUPERVISOR WITHIN EARSHOT OF OTHER
EMPLOYEES, AND IT STATED THAT A CONTINUED REFUSAL BY EGAN TO MEET WITH
MANAGEMENT WHEN REQUESTED WOULD BE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRITTEN
REPRIMAND.
10. ON MAY 5, 1978 DONNAHOO SPOKE TO THE COMPLAINANT ON HER POOR
PERFORMANCE AND RELATIONS WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES. HE MENTIONED, FURTHER,
THAT UNLESS AN IMPROVEMENT OCCURRED, A WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE FOR EGAN
WOULD BE WITHHELD. A MEMORANDUM FROM DONNAHOO TO COMPLAINANT, DATED
MAY
12, 1978, CONFIRMED THE FOREGOING CONVERSATION. IT REFERRED TO THE FACT
THAT EGAN WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHING ASSIGNMENTS EFFICIENTLY AND
EXPEDITIOUSLY; THAT HER TYPING WAS NOT SATISFACTORY, AND THAT HER
RELATIONS WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES WAS HAVING AN ADVERSE EFFECT UPON THE
ABILITY OF OTHER TO PERFORM THE WORK; AND THAT HER RELATIONSHIP WITH
SUPERVISOR HORWITZ HAD NOT IMPROVED. THE MEMO STATED FURTHER THAT IF NO
IMPROVEMENT WAS SHOWN IN THESE AREAS, OTHER ACTION, INCLUDING
CONSIDERATION OF DISCHARGE, WOULD BE TAKEN BY MANAGEMENT.
CONCLUSIONS
COMPLAINANT CONTENDS THAT RESPONDENT RETALIATED AGAINST HER WHEN SHE
REFUSED OR FAILED TO DROP HER CHARGE IN CASE NO. 20-6458 FILED AGAINST
THIS EMPLOYER. SPECIFICALLY, IT IS ALLEGED THAT (A) MANAGEMENT, THROUGH
SUPERVISOR HAROLD HORWITZ, KEPT SUPERVISOR'S NOTES ABOUT COMPLAINANT;
(B) THE SUPERVISORS FAILED AND REFUSED TO COMPLETE APPRAISAL FORMS
CONCERNING COMPLAINANT'S PERFORMANCE AND TRAITS IN CONNECTION WITH HER
APPLICATIONS FOR POSITIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY AND THE INTERIOR;
(C) RESPONDENT ISSUED A LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT TO COMPLAINANT RE HER
WORK PERFORMANCE AND BEHAVIOR-- ALL BECAUSE EGAN REFUSED TO DROP HER
PRIOR COMPLAINT (20-6458) FILED AGAINST RESPONDENT.
UNDER SECTION 19(A)(4) OF THE ORDER AN EMPLOYER IS PROHIBITED FROM
DISCIPLINING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE BECAUSE HE
HAS FILED A COMPLAINT OR GIVEN TESTIMONY UNDER THE ORDER. THUS, IF
COMPLAINANT IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT RESPONDENT HEREIN TOOK ANY OF THE
ALLEGED ACTIONS AGAINST HER, AS A RESULT OF HER FILING A COMPLAINT
AGAINST IT, A VIOLATION OF 19(A)(4) WOULD EXIST IN THE INSTANT CASE.
AFTER A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE FACTS HEREIN, HOWEVER, I AM CONVINCED
THAT COMPLAINANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT RESPONDENT CONDUCT TOWARD
EGAN
WAS DISCRIMINATORILY MOTIVATED. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, IN MY
OPINION, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACTIONS BY THE EMPLOYER WERE PROMPTED
BY COMPLAINANT'S HAVING FILED A COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. 20-6458, OR DUE TO
HER REFUSAL TO WITHDRAW SAID COMPLAINT. WHILE COMPLAINANT FERVENTLY
FEELS, AND AVERS, THAT THE PARTICULAR ACTS BY RESPONDENT WERE SO
ATTRIBUTABLE, THE RECORD IS BARREN OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER VIEW.
MOREOVER, HER STRONG "FEELINGS" IN THIS REGARD WILL NOT REPLACE THE
QUANTUM OF PROOF NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN A VIOLATION. SEE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE AIR FORCE ET AL., A/SLMR NO. 248.
IN RESPECT TO THE NOTE TAKING BY HORWITZ, RECORD FACTS DISCLOSE THIS
PRACTICE HAD BEEN FOLLOWED BY HIM SINCE 1946. FURTHER, THE SUPERVISOR
KEPT NOTES REGARDING ALL HIS EMPLOYEES. APART FROM THE FACT THAT HIS
RECORDS WERE NOT LIMITED TO THE PERFORMANCE OR BEHAVIOR OF THE
COMPLAINANT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HORWITZ MADE NOTATIONS FOR ANY
DISCRIMINATORY REASON UNDER THE ORDER.
NEITHER DOES IT BECOME EVIDENT THAT THE FAILURE BY MANAGEMENT TO
COMPLETE THE FORMS CONCERNING EGAN'S APPLICATION FOR OTHER EMPLOYMENT
WAS RETALIATORY IN NATURE. THE TESTIMONY IN THIS REGARD, WHICH I
CREDIT, ESTABLISHES THAT THE OMISSIONS WERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE
PARTICULAR TRAITS TO BE RATED WERE INVOLVED IN COMPLAINANT'S APPEAL FROM
A DENIAL OF A WITHIN GRADE INCREASE. THE PROPRIETARY OF RESPONDENT'S
ACTION, IN LEAVING BLANKS ON THE RATING FORMS, IS NOT IN ISSUE HEREIN.
UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT THE FAILURE TO FILL OUT THE SAID FORM
STEMMED FROM THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL REASONS ADVANCED BY COMPLAINANT, NO
VIOLATION CAN BE FOUND TO EXIST. SPECIFICALLY, IT MUST BE SHOWN, IN
THIS RESPECT, THAT BUT FOR THE EXERCISE BY EGAN OF HER RIGHTS UNDER THE
ORDER-- FILING OF THE PREVIOUS COMPLAINT-- THE EMPLOYER WOULD HAVE
COMPLETED THE RATING FORM AND NOT LEFT BLANKS REMAINING THEREIN. I AM
NOT PERSUADED THAT IT HAS BEEN SO ESTABLISHED.
IN RESPECT TO THE ADMONISHMENT LETTER OF MARCH 2, 1978, THE RECORD
REFLECTS THAT IT FOLLOWED THE INCIDENT OF MARCH 1 INVOLVING COMPLAINANT
AND HER COLLEAGUE, JOANNE BEVAN IN THE SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE. THE
ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR OF EGAN GAVE RISE TO MANAGEMENT'S DESIRE TO
DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH HER, AND THE LETTER'S REFUSAL TO DO SO PROMPTED
THE ADMONITION. IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER BLAME FOR THE CONTROVERSY LAY
WITH EGAN OR BEVAN, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE
MEMO RESULTED IN ANY WAY FROM THE REFUSAL TO DROP THE EARLIER COMPLAINT
AGAINST MANAGEMENT. IT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED THAT SUCH ACTION WAS TAKEN
BECAUSE COMPLAINANT EXERCISED RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE ORDER. CF.
VETERAN ADMINISTRATION, NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS HOSPITAL, NORTH CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS, A/SLMR NO.1024. ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, I AM SATISFIED
THAT COMPLAINANT'S BEHAVIOR AND INTRANSIGENCE LED TO A LEGITIMATE
CONCERN BY THE EMPLOYER; THAT IT SOUGHT, IN GOOD FAITH, TO DISCUSS
EGAN'S CONDUCT WITH HER; AND THAT THE LATTER'S REFUSAL TO DO
PRECIPITATED THE ADMONISHMENT MEMO OF MARCH 2, 1978. ACCORDINGLY, I
CONCLUDE NO ILLEGAL MOTIVATION WAS PRESENT BY RESPONDENT'S ACTION IN
THIS REGARD.
RECOMMENDATION
IT HAVING BEEN FOUND THAT RESPONDENT DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY CONDUCT
VIOLATIVE OF SECTIONS 19(A)(1) AND (4) OF THE ORDER, IT IS RECOMMENDED
THAT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
WILLIAM NAIMARK
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
DATED: 11 JAN 1979
WASHINGTON, D.C.
WN:MJM
/1/ ON PAGES 4 AND 6 OF HIS RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE INADVERTENTLY CITED A DATE AS "1946" INSTEAD OF
"1976." THESE INADVERTENT ERRORS ARE HEREBY CORRECTED.
/2/ IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 902(B) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT
OF 1978 (92 STAT. 1224), THE INSTANT CASE IS DECIDED SOLELY ON THE BASIS
OF E.O. 11491, AS AMENDED, AND AS IF THE NEW FEDERAL SERVICE
LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE (92 STAT. 1191) HAD NOT BEEN ENACTED.
THE DECISION AND ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE IN ANY MANNER EITHER THE
MEANING OR APPLICATION OF RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE NEW STATUTE OR THE
RESULT WHICH WOULD BE REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY IF THE CASE HAD ARISEN
UNDER THE STATUTE RATHER THAN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
/3/ THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER TO THE PARTIES, DATED
SEPTEMBER 27, 1978, STATED THAT THE ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE
HEARING CONCERNED ALLEGED RETALIATORY CONDUCT TAKEN BY RESPONDENT
AGAINST COMPLAINANT AS FOLLOWS: (1) FAILURE TO GIVE COMPLAINANT
COMPLETELY FILLED OUR APPRAISAL FORMS FOR HER POSITION APPLICATIONS WITH
THE DEPARTMENTS OF INTERIOR AND THE NAVY, (2) ISSUANCE OF A MARCH 2,
1978 LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT TO COMPLAINANT, (3) MAINTENANCE OF
SUPERVISORY NOTES CONCERNING THE COMPLAINANT.
ALTHOUGH THE COMPLAINT WAS LIMITED TO ALLEGING THE ISSUANCE OF A
LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT, RESPONDENT AGREED AT THE HEARING TO LITIGATE THE
OTHER TWO ALLEGED ACTS TAKEN TOWARD EGAN. ACCORDINGLY, THE UNDERSIGNED
PERMITTED COMPLAINANT TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE THAT RESPONDENT
UNDERTOOK ALL THREE ACTIONS BECAUSE COMPLAINANT REFUSED TO DROP THE
PREVIOUS UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE IN CASE NO. 20-06458(CA).
/4/ THE POOR PERFORMANCE RATING OF COMPLAINANT WAS ATTRIBUTABLE, FOR
THE MOST PART, TO INCORRECT TYPING, LISTINGS, AND ATTACHMENTS TO
REPORTS. IN RESPECT TO HER BEHAVIOR, RESPONDENT FAULTED COMPLAINANT FOR
LOUDNESS AND REFUSAL TO MEET WITH HER SUPERVISOR TO DISCUSS THESE
CRITICISMS.